Legal Opinion

Smith v. Merck

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 12, 1950No. 16879PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Almand, Justice.(a) Where one expressly authorizes another to act for him in a particular transaction, the relation of principal and agent arises. Code, § 4-101. “The word ‘agency,’ both in law and as used in every-day affairs, may have various meanings. It may refer, and perhaps most often does, to that relation ‘created by express or implied contract or by law, whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business with more or less discretionary power to another, who undertakes to manage the affair and render, to him an account thereof.’ Burkhalter v. Ford Motor Co., 29 Ga.…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Lavender v. KurnSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Bowden v. AchorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  3. Elliott v. MarshallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  4. Williams v. FottchéSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
  5. Timmerman v. StanleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1905

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Eugene Telfair v. First Union Mortgage CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
  2. Clinton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  3. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  4. Lane Co. v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  5. Sutton v. McMillanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API